Rear lean-to extension at 48 Queen Elizabeth Way, Kingfield, Woking

“Planning permission is sought for the retention of a single storey front extension, two- storey side extension, part ground, part first-floor rear extensions, additional ground floor rear lean-to, and alterations to fenestration to elevations.”

“The site is occupied by a two-storey semi-detached residential dwelling externally finished in red facing brick below a plain tiled roof and dark-framed UPVC windows. To the rear, lies a private rear garden, bounded on both sides by close board fencing. The property has recently been enlarged by way of a rear outbuilding, and single and double-storey front, rear and side extensions to which the present application relates.”

“Planning consent is sought for the retention of a single storey front extension, two- storey side extension, part ground, part first-floor rear extensions, additional ground floor rear lean-to, and alterations to fenestration to elevations.”

“It is pertinent to note as per the planning history section below, that permission has been granted for the retention of the single storey front extension, two-storey side extension, part ground and part first-floor rear extensions and alterations to fenestration to elevations. The only matter to be considered under the scope of the preceding assessment consists of the additional ground floor lean to.”

“As set out above, permission has been granted for the retention of the single storey front extension, two-storey side extension, part ground and part first- floor rear extensions and alterations to fenestration to elevations. The only matter to be considered under the scope of the preceding assessment comprises the additional ground floor lean to. The lean-to in question spans almost the entire width of the dwelling.”

“The ground floor lean-to, which consists of an “extension to an extension”, measuring a total of 9.6m in depth across almost its entire width when measured from the original rear wall of the dwelling is considered unacceptable in design terms.”

“Lead Local Flood Authority: We are not content with the application as set out above. The applicant has not provided any information which confirms how surface water will be managed on site, and how the proposals will not increase surface water flood risk downstream of the site.”

“In accordance with the Standing Order set out in the Constitution, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the recommendation to approve the application. The votes for and against approval of the application were recorded as follows.”

“Present but not voting: Cllr L Lyons (Chairman)”

“Councillor C Martin proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor T Spenser, that the application be refused on the grounds that the retrospectively built single storey front extension represented a highly visible, insubordinate and bulky addition to the front elevation which would be out of character with the surrounding street scene.”

“[name withheld] informed the Committee that legal advice would be sought from the Council’s Legal Department regarding enforcement action. He noted that, as the property in question was Council-owned, the process was more complex than usual.”

“That planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons as set out in these minutes.”